Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Don Shutters]

  Why has the quality of patent illustrations been allowed to go so far downhill?

[LF]

Any specific example? Application number?

[don shutters]

I went to the USPTO and pulled their sample number 5123456.  It was granted in 1992.  It is better than some, but it illustrates my point.  The placement of figures for example starts.  Granted the 4a, 4b, and 4c are on the same sheet, but why the strange order?  No shading on the figures hinders an understanding of what we are looking at.  And the most difficult thing of all on this sheet is the lack of use of the 'alphabet of lines' most notable is the absence of hidden lines to indicate which item is in front and which is in back.  A solid line crossing a solid line is a basic no-no unless it is a drawing of a chess board.  

Some spots are a bit muddy from being drawn so small.

While no rules may have been violated, the quality and therefore the understanding of the drawing is compromised.

On the plus side, the line work looks good.  

[plex]

An illustration just has to be enabling. If there is no claim which involves the exact dimensions of the object, it really only needs to display the general setup of the objects and only go into detail about what is being claimed.

Illustrations really aren't there to show how to make the product the same way the inventor made it, it is just their to go into detail about whatever is novel about that patent, anything else is just background information with very loose requirements.

The lack in quality of illustrations is because a patent will be accepted if it is vague in unclaimed areas, and because of that, patent practitioners do not require the patentee to rewrite their drawings to be more accurate. Beyond whatever is being claimed, the onus is on the patentee to make the illustrations more descriptive than absolutely necessary. This is painful for someone to look at who likes an application to be accurate in all aspects, but it is the way it is.

[just posting]

I recently worked, for the first time, with a drawings draftsperson that did all of his work by pencil ... old school. Ultimately he generated PDF files of the work, but the source art is in pencil. I observed something interesting from the interaction with him. He understood that which he drew. He asked a lot of questions in order to gain that understanding. Once he understood the invention, he actually suggested the number of needed drawings and the perspectives of their views ... he ran the show on the drawings.

That experience was different than when working with computer aided drafting people. Their approach can be cell-by-cell. If a long beam in the background of a drawing is interrupted by an item in the foreground, the ends of the beam might not line up in the drawing. They seem to forget that the drawing is to depict a real beam. I think they look at the digital pictures I give them from a cell-by-cell approach ... they consider little areas one at a time and forget to look at the whole drawing.

The guy using the pencil is going to get the background beam straight ... he uses a ruler ... he thinks of the beam and how it passes behind something ... he thinks about how the foreground items partially hide the background items, but the foreground items do not distort or cancel the existence of the background items. He uses a lot of shading that helps one appreciate surfaces and textures and helps the illustration stand out of the page. But then he gets a little cranky when drastic changes are needed ... such as when the inventor faxes in the latest brainstorming improvement idea. If big changes are needed, the guy with the pencil may have to strart over from scratch.

The guy using the computer sees lines and shapes in one cell of the drawing and other lines and shapes in other cells ... he doesn't think of the beam as continuous ... out of sight, out of mind ... as it passes behind the foreground item, the beam vanishes, distorts, or is forgotten. He uses less shading and seems to live in a two-dimensional world where geometric shapes concatenate to approximate a digital photo cell-by-cell ... almost pixel-by-pixel.

I agree with the point of Plex ... the drawings and specification need only enable the claims ... everything else is eye candy. However, I have found myself claiming, upon amendment in view of prior art, details that are shown in the drawings but are not mentioned in the specification. So, the drawings are important from the front end of the project ... upon filing.

The pencil-wielding drawing guy is elderly, and a little cranky, and may be one of the last of his kind. When he says he gets it (as in "yeah I got it ... I understand"), by golly he gets it and the drawings show that he gets it. The younger guys, using computers ... sometimes they say they get it before asking many questions, they just look at the picture I show them and are ready to draw. They don't need to know much about how the invention works. But later, I find myself going through a lot of tedious revisions trying to get them to perfect a perspective view.

I'm not trying to disparage either approach ... I'm just reflecting upon my experience in working with each ... and typing while I reflect.

[Don Shutters]

So you are saying that it is ok to violate basic drafting standards as long as the claims are shown?  In my opinion that would be the equivalent of writing the applications with bad grammar and poor spelling.


Your comment that it is painful for someone to look at is my point.  I have found a few lawyers scratching their heads while trying to decipher poor drawings.

Finally, yes I am old and cranky.

[Just Posting]

Regarding basic drafting standards, let's get on the same page. Patent applications need only comply with the MPEP. Read at least the relative portions of chapter 600 of the MPEP if you want to come to an understanding of the drafting standards in patent applications.

If you're talking about some other standards, then you're not on the same page with me. I've drawn and commissioned many patent application drawings that would earn a failing grade in any respectable engineering drafting course.

You, of course, are free to raise the quality of drawings in patent applications under your control, insofar as you perform in keeping with at least chapter 600 of the MPEP.

Perhaps you have viewed patent drawings that defy intentions to narrow the scope of the claims. For example, one might be perplexed that a claim recites that two members are attached by a connector. We all know that any real connector has a particular physical shape with infinite detail. But a drawing enabling the claim might provide such little detail that one cannot even determine whether a nail or a screw is shown. The patent practitioner who prepared the application may have intended breadth in the drawing. Let us not confuse broad drawings with poor drawings. Perhaps your lawyers were scratching their heads in frustration over their inability to construe the drawings toward unduly limiting the claims.

Regarding writing a patent application with poor grammar, have you looked at the "grammar" of patent claims? They typically don't appear to be proper sentences. The claims I write would undoubtedly receive a failing grade in any respectable English writing class.

I don't mean to quarrel with anyone here, and I believe that I've exhausted any points I have ... which center on applying the relevant standards when judging any work. Patent drawings are not blueprints. They typically and rightfully omit details that would be needed by a machinist if an item were to be fabricated.

[plex]

The problem with illustrations, as has been shown and stated before, is that the guidelines for the illustrations are quite few. While a drawing, schematic and a list of parts are essential to any engineering activity, they are just a small, and, because of how vague the guild lines are which restrict them, fairly powerless portion of the patent.

So, you will see drastic changes in quality for illustrations. The quality of the illustration is based entirely upon how the patentee's views the patent. It may just be a rubber stamp to them, to which they are the author but their company is the owner. Or, it may be a sacred object, an extremely essential part of their future, it may be a patent for a business they own, in which the patent is for their flagship product. You can expect drastically different levels of care being taken by the patentee in the creation of the patent.

What you may be seeing, beyond a transitions caused by changes in technology,  are the rubber stamp applications, written by authors who are writing the patent to just establish their companies claims, not protect an important and vital product they have created and for which they expect to be compensated. This is an indication that patents are becoming a more integral part of industry, but it certainly doesn't have a positive effect on making the less than necessary parts of a patent shine.

[arnie08515]

I getting started on  solo practice.  What is the best audcad program out there to do drawings.   I saw the tubocad professonal software but its expensive.  Just looking for some good software that does a nicer than average job and is easy to use.   say 50 to $100 but would go more if needed.

Thanks

[Don Shutters]

I, as does everyone in my office, use CANVAS 8 by ACD.   Canvas was originally made by Deneba then sold to ACD.  Canvas goes up to version 10 or is it now 11.  In any case, I believe the 8 version to be the most versitile.  The price is not out of this world either.  Works on Mac's or PCs

It all depends on what you get use to using.  Some prefer Autocad, Solid Works, Adobe Illustrated, or just grabbing a T-Square (what's that?), paper and board and doing it the old fashion way.  It is easier to be creative, when doing it by hand.